Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:54:32.195Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An assessment of cleaning and sampling methods for food-contact surfaces in premises preparing and selling high-risk foods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

G. M. Tebbutt
G. M. Tebbutt
Affiliation:
Middlesbrough Public Health Laboratory, South Cleveland Hospital, Marton Road, Middlesbrough, Cleveland TS4 3TA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The performance of agar-contact plates and an alginate-swab method for sampling food surfaces before and after cleaning was compared. Contact plates were more convenient, and were at least as sensitive as the swabbing method. To assess cleaning efficiency repeated sampling was carried out in selected premises, and several cleaning methods were introduced for trial periods. Some surfaces, notably wood and polypropylene, were particularly difficult to clean. For these scrubbing with a nylon brush was the best method. Other surfaces were more easily cleaned, and generally the methods introduced as part of this study were better than the original method used in the premises. Paper proved to be unpopular, and cleaning solutions applied with it did no better than those cleaned with a multiuse cloth kept soaking in a detergent and hypochlorite solution.

Type
Special Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 106 , Issue 2 , April 1991 , pp. 319 - 327
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

References

REFERENCES

1.Higgins, M. Acomparison of the recovery rate of organisms from cotton-wool and calcium alginate wool swabs. Monthly Bulletin Ministry of Health and PHLS 1950; 9: 50–1.Google Scholar
2.Gilbert, RJ. Comparison of materials used for cleaning equipment in retail food premises, and of two methods for the enumeration of bacteria on cleaned equipment and work surfaces. J Hyg 1970; 68: 221–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Mossel, DA, Kampelmacher, EH, Van Noorle Jansen, LM. Verification of adequate sanitation of wooden surfaces used in meat and poultry processing. Zentralb Bakteriol, Parasit, Infekt Hyg I 1966; 201: 91–103.Google Scholar
4.Hall, LB, Hartnett, MJ. Measurement of the bacterial contamination of surfaces in hospitals. Public Health Reports 1964; 79: 1021–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Brewer, JA, Turner, AG. Replicating Rodac plates for identifying and enumerating bacterial contamination. Health Lab Sci 1973; 10: 195–202.Google Scholar
6.Tebbutt, GM. Laboratory evaluation of disposable and reusable disinfectant cloths for cleaning food contact surfaces. Epidemiol Infect 1988; 101: 367–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Davis, JG, Blake, JR, Woodall, CM. A survey of the hygienic condition of domestic dishcloths and tea-towels. Medical Officer 1968; 120: 29–32.Google Scholar
8.Gilbert, RJ. Cross-contamination by cooked-meat slicing machines and cleaning cloths. J Hyg 1969; 67: 249–54.Google Scholar
9.Gilbert, RJ, Maurer, IM. The hygiene of slicing machines, carving knives, and can-openers. J Hyg 1968; 66: 439–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Holah, JT, Betts, RP, Thorpe, RH. The use of epifluorescence microscopy to determine surface hygiene. Int Biodeterioration 1989; 25: 147–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Thompson, P. Rapid hygiene analysis using ATP bioluminescence. Eur Food Drink Rev 1989; Spring issue, 42–8.Google Scholar